Were gun turrets on bomber aircraft during WW2 ever necessary? They slow down the aircraft, increase fuel demands...

Fuck brigands
t. Nathan Zachary, air pirate

Attached: Plane_Brigand.jpg (640x480, 216K)

you don't like giving the jerries the ol' full broadside, lad?

goddamn its been a minute, good game

btw fury best plane

ok but put the turret on the bottom, armor it and use it for ground attack

No guns worked for fast bombers but not slow/average speed bombers that fighters could catch up to. The moment you had fighters being able to make multiple engagement runs then the strategy went to interlocking defensive fire. The Brits went for night raids for that reason (increased difficulty of fighter ops, the Yanks because they thought the better ability to hit the target offset night ops advantages.

fucking niggers

Attached: armm.jpg (2592x1936, 1.16M)

>not the devestator

Attached: 8547.jpg (640x480, 41K)

this is now a wristlet cope thread

Attached: 79552E0D-1BF5-41A3-A667-BC39DE75826F.jpg (4032x3024, 3.46M)

Attached: 1401296988651.jpg (779x851, 139K)

I love that you had two negatives to say about it but listed them as 3 and then claimed "and so on"

Fucking kek.
You're a funny baiter, OP.

Yes, as bombers were not able to be escorted all the way over Germany until late in the war.

Yes. For heavy fighters and bombing runs, it kept smaller and more agile craft from getting behind them and shredding them.

But bro it slows the plane down, increases fuel demands, and makes the plane slower.
It also makes the plane longer to accelerate
It also makes you spend more on gas
And the plane isnt as fast as one without a turret

And so on

More like the Brits didn’t care what they hit

Didn't 52's have an equivalent with radar?

Yeah but you become defenseless without a fighter escort which wasn’t always available early war

We didnt have anything that performs like modern CRAMs/PHALANX back then

I dont think you're following along too well here

>More like the Brits didn’t care what they hit
Fucking this
>think Jerry ain't so tough over England
>try to take the fight to them
>what the fuck I love the Americans again

not that user
i did and i giggled a bit

>We didnt have anything that performs like modern CRAMs/PHALANX back then
Gee thanks autismo I wasn't talking about a 1:1 comparison I was talking about this
>In the rear fuselage, a tail turret with four 0.50inch (12.7mm) machine guns with a fire-control system

Yes op. Gunners positions were just a really neat way for the army to kill four extra guys every time a plane went down.
Spewing .50 bmg in all directions had no effect on enemy pilots because they were in invincible German aircraft!
Each one kissed by Hitler himself!

>The pilots not the planes.
> dudes bestie was a homo after all.

why are bombers even necessary? cant we just be friends instead?

>Each one kissed by Hitler himself!
Nazi's were crossdressing gays, so that part isnt that far of mark

So what happens when they get behind you?

Attached: 53D46504-C7BC-49BD-8EB8-E2E09C30DA88.jpg (480x360, 18K)

What plan is this? Looks similar to an IL 2 but also a bit like a Hurricane.

The same british government that ordered it's men to advance slowly towards the enemy MG emplacements during WW1 because they theorized it would make them harder to hit. Trusting theorists is best done from a safe vantage point that is no where near the combat zone. Fast attack bombers that hit and run, sure, maybe they could skip the defensive MGs. Lumbering massive bombing formations that would be severely outclassed in speed even without the turrets? That's a "no" from me champ. I **might** agree with that if our bombers weren't on extended flights far over enemy territory.

Bolton Paul Defiant - A Turreted fighter
The idea was that it could fire on bombers from angles defensive gunners could not cover

Boulton Paul Defiant.
It did abysmally during the Battle of Britain when used during the day, They were better at night, but overall not worth building over Supermarine or Hawker designs.

you fucking retard
old 666 begs to differ
youtube.com/watch?v=6Im086TCu3I

Attached: old 666.jpg (440x289, 32K)

youtube.com/watch?v=SoRVStgnTa8

It didn't have to be an all or nothing approach. You would see B-17s late in the war with their ball turrets taken out, since the formations they were in were so large whatever field of fire the ball turret had was going to be overlapped by several other guns. The cruising speed went from 160 to almost 180 knots.

>YB-40 Gunship: It was a thing.

Attached: 280px-Yb-40-gun-details.png (280x190, 33K)

Yes they where necessary, they created a perimeter that the attacker cannot enter without being forced to evade, that translates to either longer engagements where accuracy suffers, lowering losses, or damage to the attacker making them break off continued attacks, lowering losses

The weight of a few dozen guns and their ammo is not a notable concern to a bomber carrying a dozen+ tons of ordinance

Fuel demands are an irrelevance if they cannot reach and return from a target

In WW2 they where a very relevant detail and would cause several fighters per attack run to fall back for repairs taking them out of the fight for hours if not days of maintenance
The only reason they are not used on modern aircraft is because of the speeds and ranges involved now mean that the range of even dog-fighting missiles far outstrips any possible cannons fitted
If HOBS missiles are integrated with a system like EODAS I would not be surprised if defensive weapons made a return one day

Well they were necessary to stop a nation from committing genocide and trying to invade all neighboring countries.

The U.S. would have loved to just be friends. We were extremely reluctant to join the war.

You only be friends if both sides are willing

Abysmal is an overstatement - It was still well over 2 for 1 ratio'd in the defiants during the day time

>YB-40
Better than that shot is this MONSTROSITY

Attached: YB-40 Chin.jpg (800x600, 64K)

I'm and I'm gay, if it helps. Sorry x

Shut the fuck up you smooth brain noguns shitskin

>not the bulldog
im not even gonna bother with a pic because they're all like 300x300 thumbnails

Jow Forumscel detected
Too easy

who weird wristbones here?

Attached: ss (2019-06-26 at 05.13.30).jpg (701x841, 129K)

What's that yellow blotch on your skin boy?

lou gherigs disease

Yeah, cause disarming any of your countries people is always popular with hasguns.

Oh look it's bash the U.K. time

Again

They found out the fucker had a different already known disease.

Piece of shit didnt even have his own disease

>Not the Bloodhawk
Not that I expect any taste for dirt poor Pirates
>T. Blake Aviation

They had them taken out cause we had overwhelming air supremacy, dumbass.

no shit?

I did not fact check myself before posting that but I remember hearing he didnt actually have "lou gehrigs" but something else.

>brit who can't banter
Oh how the mighty have fallen

All empires come to an end my friend, history tells us this. It's going to be hilarious to watch yours come to an end. Enjoy watching niggers rape your women and taking all your shit.

It's already happened to us and the same will happen to you.

From a Brit that can banter.

>its already happened to us
m8 you're 80% white at the lowest and you live on an island dont try to pretend our situation will be anything like yours it will be worse

Yeah, the B-52 had four .50s at first which were later replaced with M61s, which were later removed.

>From a Brit that can banter
As one to another then, just don't you spastic cockwomble, or I'll start norf posting until you fucking do one you melt

They were mostly useless.
Unescorted bombers took unsustainable casualties over Germany no matter how many guns they could put in them.

>Unsustainable losses sustained for 6 years

After they got harmed xD

The african SAS murder kube high priest has lanklet wrists

Attached: 8626686-6604735-Photos_from_the_scenes_yesterday_show_the_off_duty_Special_Force-a-22_1547761897458. (634x569, 125K)

>sturm 190s
>mk108
>r4ms
>br21s

Hmmm

It's stupid if you put a bunch of .303 machineguns and dont protect your belly but .50s can cause some hurt, especially when a combat box can point 30 at 1 of 12 interceptors

cool story. i always wonder what the enemy thinks in this situation.
unescorted bomber? easy prey.
oh it's got extra guns...ok fuck
keep wailing away at it for nearly an hour
can't keep up the fight due to fuel, lost some guys, start heading home.
get home and report an enemy bomber survived the attack and took out some of our own...

kinda like the USS lexington, as the japs it's gotta be frightening putting up with stuff like that. the pilot, Jay Zeemer(?) keeping infantry in mind for his mission is a god for doing that.

>Unescorted

>WeDie.gif

Nah, lasers will be more practical in a decade though.

OP is either 12 years old, or fucking retarded.

not sure how that could possible happen though, we've got a shit ton of armor.
the bomb is still burning though...
this is going to be a shit storm.
I'm still getting pissed off at it.

My great Uncle smoked a lot of nipps from his tail gunner position on the B-25

Attached: billy5.png (500x300, 96K)

Ah my bad, my bad - 4 years

Is it a good idea? No. Should we do it? Yes.

semi related link, for your amusement

quora.com/Did-the-rear-mounted-defensive-guns-turrets-on-such-smaller-WWII-aircraft-as-the-Messerschmitt-110-Boulton-Paul-Defiant-or-Grumman-Avenger-do-much-good-in-combat-Or-was-it-pre-war-concept-that-didnt-pan-out

>disarms jews
>disarms niggers
>weird the murder rate went WAY down

B-58 also had a radar-guided M61, or some earlier equivalent. Kinda strange, considering it was designed for high altitude supersonic bombing missions, but whatever.

Attached: Convair B-58A Hustler(1).jpg (2000x1122, 266K)

>KNIFE

youtu.be/NRQap7OqRCc

Attached: 1560943519745.jpg (500x689, 69K)

Never know when you will have to do some supersonic strafing runs

CIWS isn't that good, it's only meant as a last-ditch "welp, I guess we can try shooting at it, too" defense once all the other measures have failed. if the enemy is putting missiles close enough to your ships for the CIWS to shoot at them, you are probably dead.

it's kind of like hoping a plate will stop a burst of .308. brother, if you already being shot repeatedly with .308, you have fucked up.

Your lack of turrets disturbs me.

And yes -- accounts of German fighters having to make high speed passes rather than falling in behind and picking off bombers pretty much proves the point

Attached: boeing_b-54_mock-up_37.jpg (1217x984, 346K)

Attached: boeing_b-54_mock-up_02.jpg (1214x960, 340K)

Yeah they had a 20mm vulcan iirc

Attached: b-52-tail-gun.jpg (1274x704, 87K)

hehehe

Attached: 3m7y34oigo821.jpg (1475x884, 153K)

Possibly dumb question: has any bomber ever had a missile battery put on it? Like a rotating turret with a few missiles that can be fired at approaching fighters?

All makes me want to see the B-1R flying in formation with B-1Bs and F-35s swarming AAMs at incoming interceptors.

Attached: mabbl.png (1353x687, 108K)

Weight and maintenance wise CIWS is a terrible choice. You'd basically need to rebuild Phalanx's fire control system from the ground up to make it smaller.

CIWS is amazing, it just has a saturation limit.

God the B-58 was so beautiful.

regardless of Opie's intentions, at least this thread isn't utter garbage. it's like normal garbage that's alright.

based lockheed-martin engineer

Attached: 1366603118803.jpg (255x204, 27K)

Another perfect example of why air combat, aviation history, and all discussion of aircraft, period, should be banned from this retarded zoomer board.

Considering the A-10 is about the size of a B-25 it clearly has room for a tail gunner so it can strafe ground targets while climbing away after they get shot during the initial pass.

Attached: b-25h_a-10a_vwtype1.jpg (1800x1800, 572K)

Hnnnnng